means Brexit.

Discuss!

Discus means Discus

Brexitt!

Oh really?

I thought it meant "a mound or hill".

Live and learn eh!

Discus is am Olympic event

Discus is also a fish.

Discuss a discussion about disgusting discus fish served on a discus then!

Interesting

Brexit is also a very strong bait used to lure über liberals.

Right_winger wrote:Brexit is also a very strong bait used to lure über liberals.

Well it won't be luring some of the über brexiteers on this occasion, as they are currently banned because of their contributions to the Bong threads!

This thread is going to be lacking in entertainment while Ringo is serving his ban.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:This thread is going to be lacking in entertainment while Ringo is serving his ban.

It'll certainly be shorter, less exhausting and more coherent.

I could channel my inner Ringo is it would help?

*EU stuff that sounds ace but isn't factual in anyway but its what I believe coming*

The EUSSR need our money, so we should just stand strong, and remember Dunkirk and Agincourt!

*random play on words on someones username coming*

Bordedoutofmybrainclaret, glad you are here! Can't stay away eh!

*exaltation to keep them coming cos Ringo is on fire coming*

Boom! Clarets are 7th so why worry?!?

cos Ringo is on fire coming*

Apologies for THAT mental image btw

- is Ringo on a ban?
How did I miss that?

Mind you there were about 4/5 Bong threads and I got weary of reading everything.

- Ringo on a ban..
There are no words..

See those nearly alive tools in the House of Lords were sticking their noses in on Brexit yesterday... blocking it or trying to..

So the public vote for something important in a nationwide Referendum.. 52% to 48%.
- a clear result albeit a close one.

These unelected idiots on about 15 tablets a day each, decide they’re not having it.
They are gone soon, trust me.
Democracy my a***

hampsteadclaret wrote:See those nearly alive tools in the House of Lords were sticking their noses in on Brexit yesterday... blocking it or trying to..

So the public vote for something important in a nationwide Referendum.. 52% to 48%.
- a clear result albeit a close one.

These unelected idiots on about 15 tablets a day each, decide they’re not having it.
They are gone soon, trust me.
Democracy my a***

Interesting that people only want the Lords abolished due to Brexit. Why not before WW2 for example or in recent decades - why now?

I can see us staying in the EU with the MP's saying that they couldn't agree the best deal for us. The EU have us over a barrel with the Irish border issue and they will not back down on it.

hampsteadclaret wrote:See those nearly alive tools in the House of Lords were sticking their noses in on Brexit yesterday... blocking it or trying to..

By sticking their noses in, do you mean doing their job?

Ireland have had their cake and eaten it for too long. They have to accept they are a foreign country and accept that Northern Ireland is too.

hampsteadclaret wrote:See those nearly alive tools in the House of Lords were sticking their noses in on Brexit yesterday... blocking it or trying to...

These unelected idiots on about 15 tablets a day each, decide they’re not having it.
They are gone soon, trust me.
Democracy my a***

I'm not too keen on having an unelected chamber, but at least there is a lot of ability in there , including many ex-MPS, and experts in many fields.
They are actually a very important part of our democratic process, particularly at a time when a minority Tory government are being held to ransom by a bunch of fanatical religious extremists from Ireland, and a lunatic fringe of extreme right-wingers, who would ride roughshod over due parliamentary process in order to get their own way.
If May is incapable of controlling them, then thank goodness for our tried and tested Parliamentary system

Yawn.

Spijed wrote:Interesting that people only want the Lords abolished due to Brexit. Why not before WW2 for example or in recent decades - why now?

The Labour party have been threatening to either reform or abolish the House of Lords since it's formation, but they run into the same problem everytime...

If, for example, you have an elected 2nd Chamber, say of 300 " Lords ", then the fact that they are elected gives them a certain democratic " legitimacy ". In time, an elected 2nd Chamber would start demanding more powers. By just leaving the place as it is, it's an excellent place for political parties to get rid of the " awkward squad ", reward elderly MP's to get them out of the Commons, reward supporters ( although they'd deny this ! ) etc...

Spiked.. how do come to that conclusion for me really..? Do you know me?
You have absolutely no idea what my views on the House of Lords are, or how long I have held them.

JM.. aka King of the Remainers on ‘ere..

Yes.

They are doing their jobs badly in my opinion and are certainly an anachronism in 2018.

Why should feeble minded unelected geriatrics overturn the ‘will of the people’..?

Just wrong isn’t it?

- and then we lecture the rest of the world about how to be democratic.

Sickening.

***. Spijed ( obviously).

nil and JM... fair enough.

My post was slightly mischievous.. I understand the reasons for the H of L existing..

No one has answered my justifiable complaint about the democratic national result being ignored.

bfcg... do you not know how forums work?

If you’re bored by this thread then get off it.
- what are you here for?
Maybe the title confused you, it wasn’t clear enough..?

Personally I have pretty much stayed off the Brexit threads.. just thought I’d have my two pennorth on this one.

"If youre bored by this thread then get off it "
He has as much right as you do to be on this thread and to express his boredom with it if he so chooses. Who are you to be telling other posters what they can and cannot do ?

I am expressing my opinion, same as you are.

If posters came on here to say ‘yawn’ there would be no forum.

Are you having a go because I dug you out last week for posting utter tripe?

Well done.

A second house is a good thing, their experience could be useful in proposing alterations to statutes etc, or pointing out flaws in an existing debate.
But as hants says, they shouldn't have the power to change anything. Put their pov, but if the Commons disagrees tough.

The final say should always be the people, and in this case the people have spoken.

Now can I kindly get back to the football.

bfcg... do you not know how forums work?
No do enlighten me oh wonderous one.
The whole Brexit thing has been done to death.

hampsteadclaret wrote:nil and JM... fair enough.

My post was slightly mischievous.. I understand the reasons for the H of L existing..

No one has answered my justifiable complaint about the democratic national result being ignored.
.

I don't really want to engage in another endless brexit debate, but the democratic national result is not being ignored. The problem is - and has been very well debated in the Lords, that the current government hasn't a clue how to achieve it.
The Irish border / Customs union issue is an almost insoluble problem without some form of deal involving a Customs Union of some description. A majority in Parliament would probably support this, and the Lords are suggesting it, but May wants to keep to her "red lines" and the penny hasn't dropped with her yet that an open border in Ireland with no customs deal agreed is simply not possible.
As for the democratic result. Prior to the referendum, Johnson, Gove and even Farage were suggesting that we should leave the EU but remain in the Customs Union, so there were definitely a fair percentage of those who voted leave who anticipated some form of Customs Union.
The most likely outcome - brexit is happening but not the extreme version that many people are frightened of.

Colburn_Claret wrote:A second house is a good thing, their experience could be useful in proposing alterations to statutes etc, or pointing out flaws in an existing debate.
But as hants says, they shouldn't have the power to change anything. l.

They don't, and haven't had for decades.

I'd learn how our UK govt system works before trying to tell people how the EU one does, but thats just me.

hampsteadclaret wrote:nil and JM... fair enough.

My post was slightly mischievous.. I understand the reasons for the H of L existing..

No one has answered my justifiable complaint about the democratic national result being ignored.

Because the referendum result isn't being ignored. The public voted to leave the EU, and we are leaving the EU.

nil_desperandum wrote:They don't, and haven't had for decades.

I know, but they do have a history of sending anything they don't like back to the Commons again and again. It's God knows how many times in the last 2 weeks that they voted No on a Brexit issue. In the 80s 90s , Labour threatened to flood the Lords with new Labour peers if they continued to do it.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even them, but they don't want Brexit clearly, and don't have the right to keep putting obstacles in its way.

You put up obstacles to test the strength and merits of a bill. It's in everyone's interest that the bill is worded such that it can overcome those obstacles. If it does then it passes into law and everyone's happy. (Well, not always happy, but the bill is at least legitimate). If, hypothetically, the gov't were to pass a bill into law without allowing parliament to test the merits of the bill then parliament wouldn't exactly be what you'd call sovereign.

Spiral wrote: If, hypothetically, the gov't were to pass a bill into law without allowing parliament to test the merits of the bill then parliament wouldn't exactly be what you'd call sovereign.

I see what you did there

Anyway, you'll all be grateful for the Lords when Comrade Jezza tries turning Peppa Pig over to the State, or summat...

.

Colburn_Claret wrote:In the 80s 90s , Labour threatened to flood the Lords with new Labour peers if they continued to do it.

Threatened?

If it be your will wrote:The choice available today is obvious: either a hard brexit (complete with a hard border in either NI or the Irish Sea), or go back and beg to remain. It's too late in the day to sort out anything sensible between these two.
.

Neither of those will happen. Both sides ultimately want to see planes flying, trade continuing, co-operation over border arrangements, security maintained, scientific co-operation etc.
Some form of deal has been inevitable from day one.

.

What do you want?

Honestly?

Everyone to stop listening to the uber leavers and the uber remainers and get a deal that works for as many people as possible.

But as that won't happen, so I'm at the stage where anyone who thinks Jacob Rees-Mogg or Jeremy Corbyn is the future gets really annoyed then I'm all for that option.

.

Its a poster called "Brexit"

I reckon he's 50/50

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its a poster called "Brexit"

I reckon he's 50/50

The mucky beggar

Spijed wrote:Interesting that people only want the Lords abolished due to Brexit. Why not before WW2 for example or in recent decades - why now?

I wouldn't have the Lords banned as such (and I'm a Brexiteer) because most democratic countries have a second house, but I would have it elected. The Lords do do a decent job and act as a buffer much of the time against extreme policies and the truth is they can't actually 'block' anything in the long term, they can only send it back to the House of Commons for review. Eventually the Commons will always get its way but the Lords can be a pain if they want to be.
The best way forward would be to get rid of life peers, stop whatever party is in power from creating more of them so that they can get policies through more easily and elect members to it. This would mean that we would still have a second house as part of the checks and balances we need but it wouldn't be full of old men and women who have been put out to grass by their parties. I don't know of any democratic country that has an unelected 2nd house (I'm not saying that they don't exist I just don't know of one) and from that point of view we do need an overhaul of the system.
I have been saying this since I was at uni studying politics so it's not because of Brexit, it's just common sense (although I do get quite irate just recently because of the Brexit stalling).

houseboy wrote:I wouldn't have the Lords banned as such (and I'm a Brexiteer) because most democratic countries have a second house, but I would have it elected. The Lords do do a decent job and act as a buffer much of the time against extreme policies and the truth is they can't actually 'block' anything in the long term, they can only send it back to the House of Commons for review. Eventually the Commons will always get its way but the Lords can be a pain if they want to be.
The best way forward would be to get rid of life peers, stop whatever party is in power from creating more of them so that they can get policies through more easily and elect members to it. This would mean that we would still have a second house as part of the checks and balances we need but it wouldn't be full of old men and women who have been put out to grass by their parties. I don't know of any democratic country that has an unelected 2nd house (I'm not saying that they don't exist I just don't know of one) and from that point of view we do need an overhaul of the system.
I have been saying this since I was at uni studying politics so it's not because of Brexit, it's just common sense (although I do get quite irate just recently because of the Brexit stalling).

Excellent analysis,part of the problem with the Lords is that the vast majority of the public don't know what it's role is in UK democracy.
The Lords cannot pass laws but it can amend existing bills and refer them back to the HOC to revisit,it wasn't that long ago people were hailing the HOL for curbing the Government's benefit's cuts,there is a role for experienced ex-parliamentarians in the Lords,but the numbers need to be drastically reduced and some need elected to give the chamber more credibility,also expenses have to be transparent and legitimate it's bonkers that members can clock in for 5 minutes a day and claim hundreds of pounds from the taxpayers.A lot of the issues with the withdrawal bill are valid i.e the Henry the 8th powers,no Government shouldn't be accountable to Parliament and MP'S,however some staunch remainers are stalling the process hoping that the public lose interest and Brexit ultimately doesn't happen.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Honestly?

Everyone to stop listening to the uber leavers and the uber remainers and get a deal that works for as many people as possible.

But as that won't happen, so I'm at the stage where anyone who thinks Jacob Rees-Mogg or Jeremy Corbyn is the future gets really annoyed then I'm all for that option.

I'm more or less in the same place. We're the vote rerun tomorrow I'd still vote the same way for the same reasons, if anything my resolve has hardened a little as I'm bored to tears of people deliberately trying rerun the referendum whilst claiming that's absolutely what they're not doing. Just have the balls to say it!
I was also very unimpressed with Junkers et al's initial outbursts, though in honesty their tone has become more conciliatory of late, which can only be a good thing for all.

tiger76 wrote:Excellent analysis,part of the problem with the Lords is that the vast majority of the public don't know what it's role is in UK democracy.
The Lords cannot pass laws but it can amend existing bills and refer them back to the HOC to revisit,it wasn't that long ago people were hailing the HOL for curbing the Government's benefit's cuts,there is a role for experienced ex-parliamentarians in the Lords,but the numbers need to be drastically reduced and some need elected to give the chamber more credibility,also expenses have to be transparent and legitimate it's bonkers that members can clock in for 5 minutes a day and claim hundreds of pounds from the taxpayers.A lot of the issues with the withdrawal bill are valid i.e the Henry the 8th powers,no Government shouldn't be accountable to Parliament and MP'S,however some staunch remainers are stalling the process hoping that the public lose interest and Brexit ultimately doesn't happen.

Good points. A partially elected HOL has been muted in the past and it certainly would be a good start. As you state there is a lot of experience in the HOL and that is a big plus. I think that what puts people off them is the sheer age of some, they really shouldn't be in public office and many often appear to be asleep (although apparently some are listening to a speaker in the side of their chairs because of hearing problems and only appear to be sleeping). Whatever changes are made they can only be for the better but we must retain that second house.